Company Law : The submission of MSME-1 is not only a requirement of the Companies Act, but it also has implications on the Income Tax Act and af...
Company Law : Learn the consequences of not filing MSME Form 1 on time as illustrated by a recent penalty case. Understand the legal requirement...
Company Law : Delve into the conundrum surrounding Section 42(7) of the Companies Act 2013 as the ROC Delhi's adjudication order highlights the ...
Company Law : Explore the game-changing Companies (Listing of Equity Shares in Permissible Jurisdictions) Rules, 2024, paving the way for Indian...
Company Law : Explore penalty order under Sec. 135 of Companies Act, 2013 on AECOM India for CSR non-compliance. Learn consequences, key takeawa...
Company Law : MCA imposes ₹50,000 penalty on Xinpoming Technology for non-filing of DIR-3 KYC under Rule 12A. Appeal can be filed within 60 da...
Company Law : Penalty imposed on Sh. Laxit Awla under Section 165 of Companies Act, 2013, for exceeding directorship limits. Details on violatio...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court refuses interim relief against NFRA penalties imposed on CAs and CA firm in the Reliance Capital audit lapses cas...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai penalized a director after Form AOC-4 contained an incorrect AGM due date. The order emphasizes that directors are resp...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai imposed a penalty after finding that an individual held two Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai penalized a Whole Time Director for filing Form DIR-12 with an incorrect CFO appointment date. The order reiterates tha...
Company Law : The adjudicating authority held that an unlisted public company violated Section 29 by continuing to issue and transfer shares in ...
Company Law : The order emphasizes that delayed filing may regularize compliance but does not extinguish the offence committed during the period...
ROC Mumbai held that once delay in appointing an Internal Auditor was compounded by the Regional Director and default rectified, no further penalty under Section 450 could be imposed.
Even though the form was auto-approved under STP mode, the adjudicating authority imposed penalty for inaccurate disclosure. Responsibility for correctness rests with the digital signatory.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalties under Section 172 after a public company failed to fill a Woman Director vacancy within the prescribed three-month period, resulting in 18 days of non-compliance.
The Adjudicating Officer held that omission of a mandatory valuation report in private placement filings violates Rule 12(7) and attracts penalty under Section 450 of the Companies Act. The plea of oversight was rejected, reinforcing strict compliance in statutory e-forms.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to attach the mandatory valuation report in private placement filings violates Rule 12(7) and attracts penalty under Section 450. Oversight was not accepted as a valid defence.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to appoint the required two independent directors within the statutory timeline violates Section 149. Monetary penalties were imposed on both the company and its officers.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalties for failure to appoint the mandatory two Independent Directors within the prescribed timeline under Section 149. The order clarifies that delayed compliance after conversion into a public company invites monetary penalty under Section 172.
In a case involving delayed filing of annual returns for FY 2013–14, the ROC declined to impose penalty under Section 454. The order clarified that pre-2018 defaults fall under the fine regime, not the penalty regime, leaving compounding as the appropriate remedy.
The Registrar held that delayed filing of financial statements for FY 2013–14 occurred before decriminalisation and falls under the fine regime. Adjudication under Section 454 was declined, with liberty to seek compounding.
The Registrar of Companies penalised the company and its directors for non-compliance with Section 12 after official communication was returned undelivered. The violation was treated as a one-time offence under Section 12(8).
